______________________________________________________________It is not enough to believe what you maintain, you
must maintain what you believe,and maintain it because you believe it.—Archbishop
Whately.

SCEPTICS AND SEPOYS.
__________

AN important speech has been made at Chester by the
Bishop of Oxford. He advised that India should be settled on a Christian
basis. 'By a Christian basis,' exclaimed his Grace, 'God forbid that I
should teach you to understand that we should use one iota of force, or
fraud, or earthly favour, to draw one man into the profession of the faith
of Christ.' Not if his soul be in danger, good Bishop? Is eternal
perdition the consequence of unbelief?—and is eternal perdition so light a
matter that no 'iota of force, fraud, or earthly favour' of compulsion or
bribe is to be employed in avoiding this terrible end? Believest
thou, O Bishop, in the 'fire that is never quenched?' His Grace of Oxford
continued, 'Our duty is perfectly simple. It is that we should maintain in
the first place peace, truth, and quietness—that we should say, no man
shall suffer for religion, be disgraced for religion, or be punished for
his religion.' These sound nobler words than Bishop has uttered before in
England. Suppose a man considers himself a moralist, and has 'no
religion,' what then? Do these words apply in such a case?
Suppose a man hold Secular views of life merely—(views independent of
religion)—and stand apart from Christianity, is he to be included in this
amnesty proclaimed by the Bishop of Oxford? Will the Bishop treat
the Secularist with as much fairness as he proposes to treat the Hindoo?
Is not an English sceptic in his eyes as respectable as an Indian Sepoy?
When the Bishop says that 'no man is to suffer, be disgraced, or punished
for his religion,' he alludes to the religion of Brahmins, Mussulmen,
etc., to religions he knows to be false, and which be regards as
superstitions; if, therefore, Sepoys are not to be punished for their
false religion, nor be disgraced for it, nor suffer for it, we ask are
loyal English sceptics to be outlawed, insulted, disgraced, and punished
for theirs? Speak a little plainer, good Bishop, and there shall be
no end of the reverence we will owe you. G. J. H.

IT is certainly a feature of the age that a
Conference under the influential auspieces of Lord Brougham, Lord John
Russell, and other noblemen, should assemble to promote what may be
described as the life-long objects of Mr.
[Robert] Owen—the development of Social
Science. We must congratulate Mr. Owen on having lived to witness the
triumph of his views. We are quite aware that very few of the
eminent men present at this conference would accept Mr. Owen's plan for remedying
social evils; but the existence of social evils is now recognised in the
most conspicuous manner—they have become the subjects of public study, and
every member of the conference has agreed that they must be remedied
somehow.

We are glad to find that Mr. Owen's presence in Birmingham was the
occasion of an Address being delivered to him from a meeting of social
friends, to the following effect:—

Sir,—We gladly avail ourselves of this opportunity to
express to you our feelings of gratitude and respect for your advocacy of
freedom of thought, speech, and action—for your generous endeavours to
elevate the people called 'the working classes.' We have extreme pleasure
in associating with your name the origin of 'Infant Schools,' and 'The Ten
Hours' Bill.' It is our conviction that the health of towns and the
habitations of the poor have been vastly improved by your discovery and
advocacy of the laws of nature m their relation to the constitution of
man. The declaration first made by you' that man's character is the result
of his organisation and his surroundings,' we believe to be a profound
truth—and that the views you have advocated, which are founded on that
truth, have greatly contributed to the welfare of society. Your views
regarding the formation of human character, affecting as they do the
science of society, entitle you to be considered the pioneer, if not the
father, of social science. We desire to express our admiration of your
life of active labour and devotion to the cause of truth and justice. We
are thankful you have had the courage to dare the judgment of mankind, and
regret that some of the present generation fail to perceive the value of
your past and present efforts. The future generation, when strife of party
has subsided, will doubtless be more intelligent and virtuous than the
present, and such will form a true estimate of your useful life and noble,
unimpeachable character. These sentiments are not pre-arranged, but are
the simple expressions of the feelings of our hearts.

(Signed)

CHARLES C. CATTELL, Chairman.

Various notices of Mr. Owen's part in these proceedings, and that of
eminent disciples of his, we shall, as far as we can collect them from the
press, record in these columns. The Manchester Guardian,
which had a special reporter there, says that in the department of
Punishment and Reformation, over which Mr. Recorder Hill presided, there was a
multiplicity of papers. Amongst these was one entitled 'The
government of the world without punishment,' by Mr. Robert Owen.—The
President undertook to read this paper; Mr. Owen being present, but not sufficiently strong to
make himself audible. The paper contained a clear expansion of the
venerable author's views, and set forth that all punishment and fear of
punishment might safely be withdrawn from the human race, as to every
created being God gave the power of possessing every good quality which it
was possible to obtain. The author had governed for a quarter of a century
without punishment a population of 2,000 or 3,000 in New Lanark; he did so
by instructing children up to six years of age by natural objects, or the
best representations of them which could be obtained; these being fully
explained to them by familiar conversation between the teacher and pupils,
and by making their school, and recreation resorts pleasant and
attractive. They were taught the principles of mercy and pure and
undefiled Christianity. He thought the time would come when the
inhabitants of the world would be governed solely by the influence of love
and charity.—The learned president remarked that he visited, in 1828, the
colony of New Lanark, and he never saw so interesting a people. He
was delighted with everything, and he never saw any better proof—he did
not think there could be a better—of the truth and accuracy of all that
Mr. Owen had stated relating to that establishment (applause). No
questions were put by gentlemen to Mr. Owen, and the section proceeded to the next
paper.

At the public meeting in the Town Hall (we follow the report
of the Morning Star), Lord Brougham paid a prompt tribute to the
character and merits of Mr. Owen. Mr. Owen addressed. the meeting, but
some impatience was manifested. Lord Brougham said Mr. Owen had told him
that this would be the last occasion on which he expected to address a
public meeting; but he trusted such would not be the case. He had
known Mr. Owen for many years, and whatever difference of opinion might exist
between them, he could truly say that he had spent a lengthened, useful,
innocent, and honest life.

The significance of this conference as a testimony of the
importance of social science, is well described in the words of one of its
greatest advocates, Louis Blanc, who has expressed satisfaction in reading
Lord Brougham's summary of the objects to be attained by the Association
for Promoting Social Science, and declares that 'These are the very
objects which the French Socialists, in spite of mis-statements,
misrepresentations, and calumnies of every kind, have ceaselessly
endeavoured to promote, as is well known to any one acquainted, ever so
little, with their writings. Socialism is nothing more than a sincere and
scientific inquiry into matters which Lord Brougham declares to be
"eminently deserving of attentive study." Nor is there, to the best of my
knowledge, any French Socialist who will object to "steering a middle
course between those who regard all change as pernicious, and those whom
no change will satisfy." I would humbly suggest that there is no arguing
against men foolish enough to be satisfied with no change whatever, or so
wicked as to aim at nothing but destruction. At all events, if thinkers of
that description be in existence, I make no doubt that their views will be
easily and quickly disposed of by the united action of Lord Brougham and
his illustrious fellow-labourers. I take, therefore, the National
Association for the Promotion of Social Science to be a fact of paramount
importance. I trust it will go far to prove that those great criminals—the
French Socialists—may be pardoned, who find amongst their accomplices such
men as Lord Brougham, Lord John Russell, the Earl of Carlisle, and Sir
John Pakington.'

We shall resume our notice of these important proceedings.

G. J. H.

_________________________________________________________________________Books of the Day.
_______

THE HARD CHURCH IN CONTROVERSY WITH FREETHOUGHT.

No apology should be necessary for introducing to the readers of the
Reasoner, though somewhat too late, one of the best written works that
have of late years appeared on the side of orthodox Christianity. The
'Restoration of Belief' [Macmillan and Co., Cambridge] is the title of a work, to which those who have
not read it will be glad to have their attention called; and a review of
which may not be wholly unacceptable to such as have been impressed,
without being converted, by the arguments which it sets forth, or the
sweeping assertions in which its author too freely deals on behalf of his
own peculiar view of Religion. He belongs to the Hard Church party, as the
National Review several months ago designated the school of Rogers
and Conybeare; and his is one of many books on the same plan with which,
if I had time and strength, I should be glad to deal in detail; the
features common to the whole class being good writing, clearness rather of
expression than of thought, a larger share of knowledge than of wisdom,
and a spirit of cold, hard, disagreeable dogmatism breathed forth in
language at once forcible and fluent, calm and intolerant. This feature of
their character always reminds me of an expression in a sermon which I had
the misfortune to hear from the Rev. Francis Close; who, when expatiating
on the liberality of his own doctrine, graciously intimated that he
considered no Christians as incapable of salvation; adding parenthetically
'except of course those who disbelieve in the divinity of our blessed
Lord, who cannot be saved.' Even such is the cool, confident tone of the
disciples of Whately and Rogers, when they damn in a parenthesis
nine-tenths of the human race. So quietly is it done, and so completely
does it appear as a matter of course, that the reader forgets to be wroth
with the author who damns him, until lie is roused by reflection or a
reviewer to a sense of the wrong which has been done to him.

The 'Restoration of Belief' is rather an essay upon the
conflict between orthodoxy and heresy, than an argument on behalf of the
former. It is a reviewer's account of the case put forward on the
Christian side, with a strongly marked contempt for that alluded to as
being the defence of the sceptic. The author will not condescend to deal
with single objections, or to meet individual assaults in detail;
forgetting and even denying that if a single flaw be found in any part of
a system claiming to be of divine origin, and therefore infallible, the
authority of the whole is annihilated, and the claim proved to be a
forgery, 'To follow severally those who of late have assailed the
Christian belief of the people, in the way of reply, would be on our part
to descend from our true position, and implicitly to give way to an
utterly false idea of Christianity itself. We should thus come to think of
it as a something artificial and fragile, which the bringing forward of
objections, difficulties, flaws on its surface, this and that, ten,
twenty, a hundred doubts, might and must destroy.' Such is the writer's
language; and such language, used by one, who asserts Christianity to be a
divine system and the Bible to he an inspired book, is so utterly unfair
and preposterous, that it needs a large exercise of charity to believe in
the good faith of him who uses it. One single successful objection against
any point of the fabric destroys the whole; for if any part of the work be
vulnerable, the whole cannot be the work of Him who is perfection. He
cannot have clothed Truth in garments of falsehood; He can have given us
nothing untrue or immoral in a religion of His making; and if we find a
lie against Nature, no matter how small, or an error in fact, no matter
how trivial, then the inference is clear—this work is no work of God.

It must be carefully borne in mind just where and how far
this argument applies. It is of no avail except as against the extreme
school of orthodoxy. For them, it is a complete, crushing, overwhelming
blow, to which there is no reply, and against which silent obstinacy, or
laborious, perpetual, exhausting harmonization are their only means of
defence. But it belongs to us in common with the rational Christian or the
liberal Theist; and against these it avails us nothing. The religion of
Christ may be true, and vet the book which contains the history of his
teachings may be full of error. Nay, Christ may be God, and yet His
Apostles may have erred, and His Evangelists have forgotten or misreported
His words. Again, Christ may be regarded as a Man, excellent in nature and
intent, and endowed with supernatural wisdom, yet liable to human error;
and those who hold these views may honestly defend them by the language we
have quoted. No verbal inaccuracy, no historical blunder, no ethical
mistake, no flaw in logic, can invalidate their case. With them we must
deal, and often have dealt, in a different manner. Hosts of blunders prove
the utter unreliability of Biblical evidence; utter falsehood in principle
disproves the divine authority attributed to Christ; but no 'ten, twenty,
nor a hundred doubts' about this passage or that dogma can shake or ought
to shake a faith like theirs. It rests on a different foundation, and must
be assailed by different means.

We return to our Author—intolerant enough to believe England
the only Christian country in the world, and inconsistent enough to see in
this fact a strong proof of the truth of Christianity; as well as unjust
enough to attribute to the Gospel the moral character of the people—which
moral character he regards as the power which obtained for them the
monopoly of true religion. That is, he believes the superiority of the
English character to be the cause of England's Christianity, which again
he represents as the cause of that superiority of character.

His tone of assertion and argument as regards the evidences
of Christianity is offensive and irritating. He asserts in the boldest
manner the unimpeachable authenticity of the books of the Canon as the
result of critical inquiry—an assertion which is certainly untrue. He
misrepresents the views of anti-Christian, writers, and narrows the
question to a single issue—that the Apostles were either fools or knaves,
or that Christianity is true. Again, he represents the question of the
genuineness of a book as one solely between the theories of absolute truth
or deliberate forgery; the former of which many, not to say most candid
inquirers disbelieve, while very few are disposed to adopt the latter
hypothesis. He indulges, while professing gentlemanliness of language and
liberality of feeling, in the most offensive imputations against all who
dare to differ from his decisions. Any one who questions the genuineness
of a book which he approves, must do so 'because the gratification of a
pedantic ambition, and the craving for paradox, may find a momentary
opportunity in an instance of this sort.' He calls all religion which
dissents from Christianity by the false and obviously inapplicable name of
'Disbelief.' It may be—and I know that it is—the case that they, and
especially Professor Newman, who is obviously the enemy chiefly aimed at,
believe with a faith far more intense and a devotion far more pure than
his own in a God by whose side the God of orthodoxy is a dwarf and a
fiend.

He starts from the period of time between the reigns of
Trajan and Alexander Severus, during the suffering childhood of the
Church. He regards the martyr-principle as first introduced by
Christianity an historical misrepresentation of the grossest kind; and
confines the duty of martyrdom to the case of belief in a Person—an
atrocious offence against the moral feeling of mankind. The religious
obligation of Truth is independent of fact or subject; it implies simply
the duty to say, at all costs, nothing but the truth—that is 'the truth to
the best of our knowledge and belief.' Martyrdom became a necessity
from the moment that truth became doubtful, where heresy was obnoxious to
the powers that be; and among the first of European sufferers for conscience
sake were the 'infidel' philosophers of ancient Greece. Then he proceeds
to accuse those who have in modern times died or suffered in testimony to
their conscientious disbelief in Christianity as having stolen 'the Martyr
Principle won for us by the ancient Church'—an insolence as gross as it is
gratuitous. Truth is no patented article; and if it were, the
martyr-principle is older by centuries than Christianity. 'Risu
solvuntur tabulœ;' the plaintiff is non-suited amid general laughter;
a laughter which perhaps may contain something of bitterness as well as of
contempt, when we think what Freethinkers have suffered at the hands of
such men as this!

I shall not follow him through a long dissertation upon the
Epistles, in which no proof is ever alleged, though sweeping assertions
are constantly made; and the result of the whole of which is an assertion
that we have twenty-one epistles, belonging to Apostles or to the
Apostolic age—that is, to the first century—in several of which the
reality of Christ's resurrection and the present power of working miracles
are repeatedly but vaguely asserted. Grant that this is so—what does
it prove? For Christianity, nothing, save the existence of
Christ, which few familiar with history think of doubting. We must
have far other testimony before we believe that a man returned to life
from the dead; we must know something more definite about these 'mighty
signs and wonders' before we accept them as evidence of the divine
religion whose early teachers are said to have claimed the power of
working them. The whole argument of this section, which constitutes
a third of the book, consists of a weak and disingenuous attempt to
represent those who deny the truth of Christianity as considering the
Apostles either knaves or madmen, and is thus summed up:

'Our alternative is just this—to yield our belief to Christianity as a
supernatural dispensation; or to suppose, I do not well know how to put
such a supposition into words, that
the apostolic men, not one of them but all, stand as a class by
themselves, of which no other samples have occurred among the myriad
varieties of the species; for they are
wise and mad—they are always virtuous and wicked—they are prudent and
absurd in an extreme degree, and they are at all times consistently
inconsistent with themselves,
and with human nature.

'Language has been framed for expressing things that are, or things that
may be intelligibly conceived of. You will therefore find an extreme
difficulty in endeavouring to give
me, in any definite shape, your own idea of the apostles, the facts duly
taken into the account, on the supposition that no miracles were wrought
in attestation of their
ministry. In this attempt you will never succeed to your own satisfaction. I will not tell you that your supposition as to the Apostolic character is
"uncharitable," is
"unwarrantable," is "ungenerous," and the like; for I am content to tell
you what is simply the fact, that it is a jumble of incoherencies to which
no semblance of moral or of
immoral unity can be given. I do not tell you that your conception is
wrong and unfair; for it is no conception at all—it is a naked absurdity. I will return to this subject at any
time if you will only put before me, in a form which I can understand,
your idea of the Apostles—all the facts allowed for—on the hypothesis of
DISBELIEF.'

This stupendous attempt I am about to make, as soon as I have made the
reader acquainted with the rest of the performance so highly rated by its
very confident author. That done, I hope to give, as an antidote, a Freethinker's view of the
early history of Christianity as it may possibly have been, in
accordance with the known facts which
have come down to us. In so doing I shall altogether set aside the
presumptuous assertion of the author before me, that 'Strauss, by general
acknowledgment, has failed in
his endeavour to solve the historic problem of the origin of Christianity
on the assumption that it is false.' Strauss has conclusively shown, what
he undertook to show, that
the evangelical narratives give a wholly unreliable account of the life
and conduct of Christ; and has thereby conclusively established the
falsehood of the system at present
recognised as Christianity. More than this he can hardly be said to have
attempted; more than this it hardly seems that he wished to accomplish.

There is one argument in the 'Restoration of Belief which deserves
notice from its peculiarity, and from the still more peculiar manner in
which the writer employs it. This
argument -suspiciously akin to the 'vicious circle' so dear to feminine
logicians—he entitles the argument from congruity. It does not exactly
run ' Because the miracles were
really worked, therefore Christianity is true, and because the truth of
Christianity is certain, therefore the miracles are true,' but in the way
in which we here find it employed it
is nearly as inconclusive, and far more subtle in its power of mischief. It is used to establish an impression of the truth of
Christianity—independent of reasoning—from the
alleged accordance and harmony of its theology and its history, its morals
and its miracles. Now this is wholly unfair and unworthy of one who
professes an appeal to
Reason. Inconsistency would be an overwhelming weapon in the hands of the
sceptic, who has the advantage of position in this respect; for it is a
maxim of logic as well as
of law that 'melior est conditio prohibentis, the denier holdeth the
vantage.' But the mere fact of congruity merely enables the advocate of a
consistent system to put it on its
trial without being instantly laughed out of court. Thus much premised, we
may follow' our' author through his disquisition on the mission of Christ,
upon which he enters with
the assumption that Christianity is true. It is at this point of the
argument that we especially perceive how judicious is the line adopted by
our author in avoiding the moral
to deal with the historical question. In the former, the sceptic has a
strong prima facie case against the Christian, who is generally very much
at a loss to make good his
defence of the morality which is so highly extolled from the pulpit. In
the latter, there is no evidence against Christianity, and from the nature
of the case we could expect
none, except in the difficulty found in obtaining acceptance for it in the
earliest period of its existence, when according to the Christian its
evidences were most clear and
striking. The Christian brings forward his evidence; the 'advocate of the
Devil' as the phrase goes, has but to cross-examine and object; and this
before a hostile jury. A
skilled controversialist and imputative debater like the one we are now
considering, well knows how to avail himself of such a position.

I now come to the last portion of the work, in which the purposes of
Jesus, as authenticated by his miracles, are considered. He is regarded by
the author in the light of a
Secular Reformer, of a High priest endeavouring to form a Church around
himself, of a Prophet offering to mankind the prospect of salvation. With
the last two aspects of this
character, I shall not concern myself, as on these the book contains
nothing that is new and little that is rational. But as the first is
really a true view of the character of Jesus, as well as one that is too
generally kept in the back-ground by his soi-disant followers at the present day, it may be worth while to
consider first how this view is
dealt with in the volume before us, and secondly, in what light it
presents itself to the non-Christian inquirer; a course which will lead
naturally and gradually to the
consideration of the two other questions which arise out of the subject of
this review—the obligations of modern forms of Religion to Christianity,
and the history of Christianity
as it appears from our own point of view.

We are told then, that Christ first gave to morality an authoritative
sanction, and first set before the world a motive to right-doing, by the
announcement of a future retribution. Such is the sense of many pages, compressed into three lines. And this
assertion, Secularism meets with a distinct negative—It is not so.

Morality carries with it its own sanction; and that sanction is one which
no authority from Heaven is needed to confirm, and which no such authority
could give, were not
morality already an inherent part of nature. The fact that God wills a
certain ethical course to be pursued could not constitute an obligation on
man to pursue that course
unless man were first conscious of a tie binding him to obey the will of
God. That is to say, God did not create duty by announcing morality in the
form of a Heaven-sent
code. Even if we admitted to the fullest extent the divine mission of
Christ, no words of his could have the force of a moral law—could impose
a duty upon us—unless we had
first learned to recognise God as one not only supremely wise and
supremely powerful, but also absolutely good—one whose will we are bound
to obey not as the will of an
Almighty Master, but as the most perfect standard of moral right
attainable. And this involves what, to such logicians as the author I am
now reviewing, must seem an
unintelligible paradox; namely, that though the ethical laws of Jesus
might be of Divine origin, we yet might be bound to disobey them—bound by
a law which no Prophet
instituted, and which no Prophet can do away. If I find in those laws any
principle which is clearly and certainly pernicious to the human family,
and concerning the actual tendency of which I have no assurance from my
knowledge of the moral character of God; then it becomes my duty not only
not to act upon that principle, but to labour in
every possible way to prevent its acceptance among my brethren of mankind. There is a law within us and around us, anterior to the idea of God's
existence, and to the
knowledge of a Revelation; a law so clear and cogent that it could not
need the assistance of Christian ethics to enforce its sanctity; a law
from which the laws of
Christianity derive whatever force and vitality they have, and to which
Christian writers make perpetual appeal on behalf of their own Religion. All that Jesus can be admitted
to have done in his capacity of lawgiver, was to enunciate a code of
regulations, dependent on this supreme principle of Duty, fortified by the
authority of Him who derives His
power over the minds of those who believe in His existence from His being
accepted as the most perfect personification of this same principle, and
from the fact that He is
recognised as the All-wise Commander-in-Chief of an army enlisted under
its standard.

Then, with regard to the motive assigned by Jesus for the guidance of
human conduct in this life, I must say that I believe it will be
repudiated, directly or indirectly, by all
elevated minds and noble hearts—by Jesus himself among the first, were he
to see laid before him the moral consequence of selfishness and isolation
which grows inevitably
out of such an idea. Had he been asked whether he were willing, in order
to save his brethren from the assumed penalty destined for their sins, to
endure in their stead the
agony of eternal torments, without hope and without alleviation—what true
disciple of his can doubt what the answer would have been? Let the same
question be asked of the
martyrs and confessors who have been tortured and murdered by Christianity
and by Royalism—and who cannot read the answer in the earthly lives of
such men as Paine,
Newman, Parker—and that greater than all these—that more than 'the
Christ of the nineteenth century'—Giuseppe Mazzini? It is plain that,
though men of Tertullian's stamp
were led to endure and to strive by the hope of a Heaven for themselves
and a Hell for their foes, such is not the motive that can influence Poets
and philanthropists, Prophets
and Apostles.

'The fear of Hell's a hangman's whip
To hand the wretch in order'

and we may
freely grant to Christianity the credit of having brought to perfection,
if not invented, this useful and sometimes necessary implement. This
praise—valeat quantum—may be fairly conceded to it. We do not covet the patent.

The share of Christianity in modern civilisation has I believe been
grossly overrated. It has been little more than an accelerating
force—never a directing one; Western Orthodoxy is too pliable for that. Christianity becomes with us exactly what each generation chooses to
demand of it. It was barbaric under the Saxon regime; it was
despotic under the Conqueror; chivalric under Richard Cœur de Lion and
Edward III.; it was sternly Catholic under the House of Lancaster; and
savagely Protestant under
the House of Tudor; it was royalist under Elizabeth and her successor, and
madly republican afterwards; it was persecuting in the times of Laud and
the Covenanters, it was
mild and charitable when Tillotson became an Archbishop; in a word, it has
always been whatever would suit the temper of the times. So far from
moulding modern
civilization, it has received its own temporary character from every
fleeting phase of that civilization; it has been the passive matter, not
the agent Principle. It is the Teutonic
character which has fashioned, as a part of the modern civilization, the
modern Christian theology: which it has at divers times used as an
instrument. It certainly is not the
Christian theology which has moulded the Teutonic character. One dogma or
another repugnant to that character has been dropped out of Christianity,
because it could not
otherwise maintain its hold on western Europe; and our present
Christianity has been anglicized, far more than our English disposition
has been Christianized.

Nevertheless, I would not be understood as denying to Christianity the
credit of its actual influence on the minds of men. There is no question
that the Gospel gave the
direction to that progress of religious thought which has gone on from the
time of Jesus until now; that it turned the minds of men from chaotic
systems of Atheism and
Polytheism to a pure Monotheism, which is now gradually tending towards a
religious Atheism. There is no doubt that the Theism of Newman is greatly
indebted to Jesus
Christ; there is no doubt that our own Secularism has been benefited by
the existence and the teachings of the carpenter's son of Nazareth. There
is no doubt that each form
of modern religion has assimilated to itself much of what was good in the
teaching of Jesus, rejecting much that was logically or morally wrong. This much we may fearlessly
grant to our author, who indignantly accuses us of having drawn whatever
is excellent in our faith from the Bible. But here I stop; here I turn
round upon him, and meet his arrogance of assertion with a flat and forcible denial. The idea of a
Father-God is not original with Jesus, though its development was much
aided and advanced by him; and his
idea of that Father is inferior—and naturally and inevitably so, from our
point of view—to that attained by the most advanced Theistic minds of
the present age. There is much
good in modern Theism which is not to be found in the New Testament; there
is but little good in the latter which the modern Theism has not
assimilated to itself. Conscience, the moral judgment of the disciplined man, is an authority for
which Jesus cared little, and to which he makes no appeal. Sacrifice for
the sake of others, not in
the hope of future reward, is a principle which, though glimpses of it
were occasionally visible through the mists of the future to Prophets and
Apostles, waited for its full
recognition until a faith arose which knew nothing of an eternal
retribution. Secularism did not borrow from Christianity its high ideas of
human brotherhood; for these rest not
upon a Christian basis; nor its lofty spirit of reverence for duty; for
this Christianity knows not, and cannot understand. All that the different
forms of religion now extant or
arising owe to the Man of Nazareth, is that commencement of a reform in
the popular conceptions of religion which he sketched, but failed to
achieve; and it has been left for
the sceptic to clear the original view of Jesus from the mysteries and
errors by which his followers have obscured it. This being the case, it
ill becomes the latter to advance
the charge of plagiary; and it is a proof of the strange blindness almost
as much as of the lowness of spirit which distinguishes the writer in
question, that he has not
scrupled to advance and to reiterate it.

How Christianity could have come to exist and to be successful, if it were
not absolutely true, is a question which is pressed in these pages upon
the sceptic with great
confidence, arid as it were an overbearing demeanour on the part of the
writer; as a great and difficult problem, which in the opinion of the propounder cannot be answered,
yet not to answer which is, on the part of the sceptic, to confess himself
either a hypocrite or a fool. Now, in the first place, this is a question
which the advocate of
Christianity has no right to put. We are not bound to account for the fact
that he is, and others before him have been, Christian; and when we have
shown that Christianity is
not true, it is no reply to us to say, 'How then do I, how did all these
my ancestors and predecessors, come to believe it?' Our answer might well
be 'That is not our affair; see
you to it;' and were I as arrogant of temper as the author of this book, I
should be tempted to add 'It is not our fault that you and your
forefathers before you have been
deficient in sense and in judgment.' Or to the question itself it would be
reply sufficient that as Christianity in the West, so is Islamism dominant
in the East; the false religion
equally prevalent with the true. There is nothing in the history of
Christianity inconsistent with the idea of its being just such another
impostor as its co-partner in empire over
the minds of men. There is no other evidence in its favour than its own
character; and this is I think quite sufficient to establish it as a
genuine, if not a true religion. Nay, it
was even true relatively, bearing in mind the time of its appearance, and
the state of religious feeling at that period. Pauline, and still more Jesuan Christianity was a step in
the right direction; and as such there is nothing at which we need marvel
in the fact of its ready reception among a people like the Jews, ground by
a severe spiritual tyranny,
even had that reception been general. Yet more natural was its acceptance
amid the universal darkness and perplexity that had overspread the heathen
mind in regard to
theology and to the deeper questions of existence. Men never like an utter
vague uncertainty on these topics; and thus the eagerness with which the
new faith was grasped
at, though childish and irrational, can by no means be considered as
unnatural or surprising. It is another question how we are to explain the
part taken by the Apostles of
Christ, if we are to regard the existing accounts of their course after
his death as in any degree correct. But my own view—and I beg my readers
to remember that it is merely
a conjecture, on a subject whereon certainty is forbidden—that they had
been sufficiently penetrated with admiration for the teachings and the
personal character of Jesus to
retain their faith in him even after his death—a faith which became
gradually intensified and exaggerated, until they really came to regard
him as something more than human. Meantime they went forth, but with the exception of Paul almost solely
among their own people, preaching the doctrine they had received from him;
perhaps confirming its
truth by' mighty signs and wonders,' whatever those words may indicate;
which in that age and country would not be closely scrutinized either by
their performers or the
audience. Finally, it would appear that there are many things uncertain
and difficult to explain about the early history of Christianity, but
nothing so difficult as to believe in the
doctrines now set forth as Christian; that there is no adequate
historical evidence in support of Christianity; and in a word, that
whatever may be uncertain, thus much is
perfectly clear, that Christianity, as commonly understood and received,
is a baseless, incongruous, reasonless vision. What there is between this
and Atheism, or whether
there is any logically tenable middle ground, I do not propose to
investigate at present, though the author before me offers a tempting
opportunity for doing so. Thus much I
may say; that if ever such a Restoration of Belief as is here desired and
prophesied should occur, it will have much the same result as a certain
Restoration in English history—the speedy, utter, and final re-expulsion
of that which is to be restored, as an intolerable, iniquitous, and oppressive burden, which
may no longer be endured by free
and rational men. LIONEL
H. HOLDRETH.

These Articles are inserted on account of their intrinsic value, or
otherwise as likely to prove of interest or importance to our readers,
irrespective of coincidence with our own
principles or opinions, tone or terms of statement.

_______

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PUBLICIST.
_______BY J. C. FARN.

THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT: CAUSES OF FAILURE, AND
CONDITIONS OF SUCCESS.v.—Continued from page 236.

MY object in these papers is by the narration of personal incident, and
stating the results of subsequent observation and reflection, to point out
the causes of the failure of the
various movements with which I have been connected, with a view of
indicating the conditions of success for the future; the incidents,
therefore, may be considered in the same light as the incidents in an
'instructive novel'—viz., as
subordinate to the purpose in view.

It was the custom of the temperance men, at the outset of the movement, to
induce a number of I reformed drunkards' to come forward and state their
experiences of
drunkenness, moderation, and total abstinence from all intoxicating
drinks; what the speeches of men were who had passed all their leisure
time in the ale-house or the
spirit-shop may be more easily imagined than described. My opinion, both
at that time and the present, was, and is, that they did much towards the
advocacy of temperance
into contempt with intelligent and orderly citizens, precisely the class
upon whom all the success of societies, of whatever description, mainly
depends. We were often in
great difficulty about chairmen for our weekly meetings, and in our desire
to gain proselytes often placed professed friends-but in reality real
enemies—in the chair, and these
were often ministers of religion, men who were supposed to be willing to
do anything to diminish that drunkenness against which they were expected
sometimes, at least, to
preach. We found, however, that in the mass they were not at all disposed
to make the smallest sacrifice on its account, indeed they were so fond of
their own 'drop in
moderation' that they often made damaging speeches, which the other
speeches of the evening failed to neutralise; ultimately they kept aloof
altogether; we may presently
discover the reason why. On one occasion it was my duty to preside, when
some reformed drunkards were to make their first speeches. Shade of
Demosthenes! what
speeches were delivered on that occasion. I should certainly have vacated
the chair and left the meeting, had there been the slightest chance of my
doing so; but no, the
windows were too high. I could not escape in that direction, and the
doorway was literally blocked up by the contemptuously laughing audience,
which the speakers mistook
for applause. I never presided again under similar circumstance s indeed,
my popularity among temperance men began to be on the decline. Soon after,
oh, dreadful to state,
I had delivered a lecture in which I had endeavoured to show that there
were other causes at work to produce the vast amount of drunkenness
against which we were working,
than the mere drinking of intoxicating drinks. I gave a picture of the
growth of drunkenness, from the time the youth thought it very great to
have his pipe and his pot, until
they became to him, in the absence of mental culture and rational
amusement, his only gratifications. I endeavoured to show that excessive
labour in ill-ventilated workshops
often produced a depression of spirits that made the victims resort to
intoxicating stimulants to restore the balance.

I denounced the conduct of those who affirmed, as many of the parsons had
done, that morality was of no use without religion. I affirmed that
sobriety was a good thing of
itself, and ought not, in any way, to be discouraged; and I proclaimed
that henceforth we ought to know who were our friends and who were our
enemies. I quoted Chambers
to show that the factory system and the spirit drinking system grew up
together. I appealed to the experience of our streets, neighbourhoods, and
police-courts, to show that
most of our drunkards were men of little or no education, and oh, greatest
crime of all, I did not tell the drunkard that lie would be sure to go to
hell if he did not reform, and
pray for divine grace to help him in the work of self-reformation.

On leaving the platform a local preacher said, 'such speeches won't do
here; if he speaks I will not.' The orthdox resolved to follow his
example, and I and a few others, who
coincided in my treatment of the subject, were literally 'sent to
Coventry' at our committee meetings. This was the first, but by no means
the last, specimen of religious bigotry against which I had to contend. You might preach that drunkenness was the cause of all the poverty,
all the vice, and all the crime as
long as you pleased; you
might 'deal damnation round the land' to your heart's content; but as soon
as you claimed for yourself the right to express your opinions in your own
way the same as
other people, then it became ' heretic damnable error.' By such means as
those now described the temperance cause has been deprived of the services
of the most useful
men. I did not then see, I do not now see, why a temperance society should
become a mere recruiting agency for the parsonocracy; and yet such they
have in many
instances become. We were in the habit of urging people to take the
'pledge,' and many people did so, but the pledges were for the most part
soon broken, and people left
the societies faster than they joined—a system of desertion which has
continued to the present hour. I set myself to work to discover the causes
of this state of things, and, if
possible, to remove them; but even in this I received no aid from
religious people. I discovered that we had withdrawn the drunkard from his
usual sources of enjoyment, and
had supplied nothing in their place. After considerable labour a
reading-room was established, a discussion-class was brought into
existence, and a sort of amusement
meeting held weekly; but religious people would not help the
reading-room, because it was not sufficiently religious; the
discussion-class was broken up, because it
sometimes, but not often, took into consideration religious questions; and
the amusement was discountenanced as absolutely profane. They who were not
disposed to go to
church or chapel were slighted by those who did, and the whole arrangements were broken up. I may say, however, that if these causes had not
produced the failures I
have mentioned, there were other causes at work that would. A work on the
physiology of individual drunkenness has vet to be written. I noticed that
most of our reformed drunkards were spiritless (pardon the pun) men that did not seem to
enjoy life as many other people do; a temperance meeting of an amusing
character is the most
lugubrious thing imaginable when composed of such individuals. If I were
asked to state briefly the causes of the failure of the temperance
movement (for failed it certainly
has) I should do it in something like the following fashion:—It failed
because its absurd and extravagant advocacy did not make any impression on
intelligent people; thus they
were told that intoxicating drinks were absolutely poisonous, and yet
people lived and thrived by taking these poisons from day to day. It
failed because it sanctioned the
doctrine that moderation was the cause of drunkenness; that 'moderators'
were the most to blame for setting a bad example; the fact being that the
majority of moderators
do not become drunkards, the majority of moderators do not even attend the
public-house, or, indeed, sanction anything that leads to excessive
gratification. If the majority of he members of general society should, at any future day (a thing by no
means likely) become drunkards, it will soon break up from its own
rottenness; for in fact it requires a
large measure of sobriety to hold it together under ordinary
circumstances. I never bad any sympathy with these extravagant notions,
and never preached them; I confined
myself to showing—1st. That intoxicating drinks were not worth what they
cost. 2nd. That they were not necessary to health, strength, and
enjoyment. 3rd. That their habitual
use had a great tendency to lead to their abuse; and 4th. That their abuse
is one of the most mischievous evils with which the promoters of societarian well-being have to
contend. These things established, what need was there for anything more?

In brief papers of this kind I cannot of course enter into detailed causes
of failure and success, for they would require a volume; all I can do is
to record experience and
stimulate thought. That there are causes at work to produce the
drunkenness we see around us, of which the ordinary temperance advocate
does not dream, I feel fully
assured. No coercive Maine Law, no discouragement of mere morality, no
ignoring of excessive and insalubrious employment, no disparaging
observations about the
inefficiency of education and knowledge to prevent drunkenness, can remove
or explain away; no fierce tirades against drinking customs can possibly
succeed. While the
appetite for intoxicants exists, that appetite will be gratified, Maine
Law or no Maine Law. If it is not gratified in one way it will be in
another. In Mahometan countries
drunkenness is immoral, irreligious, and illegal, yet it exists in the
shape of opium-eating, and brings with it some greater evils than is found
in connexion with even our own
drinking system. You cannot make men moral by Act of Parliament—the
experiment has been tried and failed, temperance advocates being the
witnesses. You cannot cheat
people into morality by telling them extravagant stories—that
experiment has also been tried and failed. You cannot neutralise yourself
more effectually than by being blind
to the fact that any one panacea must fail to cure all the 'evils which
flesh is heir to,' a thing to which temperance advocates are very prone.

Allow me, then, in conclusion, to call attention to the fact that, as
drunkards are usually men of very defective ' moral culture, that
improvement in these respects
count among the causes of future success. That as the majority of the
reformed drunkards really go back again to their old excesses, that we
must begin with the young;
that as the young require amusement we must not frown upon or discourage
them; that as all the amusements of society are in the hands of the
agents of the drinking
system, every available means should be used to make them independent of
them, and thus do something to train up the young in the way that they
should go, that when
they are old they may not depart from it. Amusements, when wisely
indulged, tend to the formation of those cheerful dispositions which are
the charm of the domestic circle
in after life, and make pleasant companionship in declining age. If the
temperance advocate will henceforth content himself with moderate
advocacy, sound argument, and
measured expectations of success; if he will avoid all kinds of religious
bigotry and social intolerance, and accept of help whenever and wherever
it can be had on equal
condition; if he will be on the look out for minor as well as major
causes of intoxicational immorality, and seek to remove them by every
means in his power; if he will not
claim for the temperance movement more than it is entitled to, then I
predict for him as large a measure of success as he has had of failure. Then I predict that his labour will
not be in vain; but if he will, in spite of experience to the contrary, be
a moral Ishmaelite, whose hand is against every man, and every man's hand
against him, he must fail
as heretofore. I am as anxious for the diminution of the drunkenness of
our day as much as any man; but I cannot close my eyes to the fact that
the beginning is not yet
begun. Who does not wish drunkenness to disappear? The priest finds in its
existence an apology for the depravity of the human heart, and an apology
for his eternal hell. The employer seeks in its existence a defence for being careless of the
interests of those he employs. The political economist points to it as a
justification of his lack of
human sympathy, and the exclusive politician exclaims, See, people waste
what they have—why give them any more?

The temperance men, notwithstanding the comparative soundness of their
case, have failed to make any tangible impression on the public mind;
they have even failed to
retain the apparent converts they once made, and the causes of
drunkenness, though removable, remain unremoved. They may rest
assured that where persuasion has failed, Maine Law coercion will not
succeed. The promoters of temperance societies should be first and
foremost in providing amusements for the people. Where labour is
excessive, or carried on under depressing conditions, amusement
becomes one of the moral necessaries of life. They should be first
and foremost in the work of mental and
moral instruction by tile establishment of cheap reading-rooms, libraries,
and literary institutions, and conversation meetings; by these, or a
similar means of counteraction,
they may retain their conquests from the army of drunkards, and thus riot
find their labour in vain. In the work of reformation the drunkard's wife
should not be forgotten; if she
is at all approachable, some means of an inoffensive character may be used
to intimate to her that one way of making her husband's reformation
permanent is for her to
increase the attractions of home. Where there is little or nothing of this
kind, it is no wonder that men seek it in a public-house. It is by no
means certain that the present
coffee-house system will be able to compete with the advantages that the
publican is able to give either in amusement, 'accommodation for
travellers,' or indeed in anything
else, the charges are too great, and the benefits too small for anything
of the kind.

_________________________________________________________________________Letters to the Editor.
________

The writers of these Letters are, of course, alone responsible for the
sentiments or facts contained in them. Brevity, fairness, and public
interest constitute the best claim to
insertion.

________

SUNDAY BANDS AND THE LONDON HOSPITALS.

53, West Street, Mile End, Oct. 24th, 1857.

WILL you oblige the committee of the Sunday Band in the Victoria Park, by
inserting the following statement in reference to the extra day's
performance that took place on
Sunday, Sept. 13th, in aid of the funds of the Consumption Hospital near
the Park? We had heard with regret that the funds of the above
Institution were very low, and we
felt a great desire to assist them; consequently, we made an appeal to
the gentlemen comprising the band for a performance gratuitously. They
all, without hesitation,
acceded to our request. We at once issued bills and subscription cards
(6d. each) amongst our neighbours and friends, who all highly approved of
the object we had in view. On the Saturday afternoon previous to the Sunday on which the performance
was announced to take place, to our great astonishment the Hospital
authorities placarded the
neighbourhood with a bill headed CAUTION, stating that we had made use of
the name of their institution without their consent, etc. Indeed, the
wording of the bill was
evidently intended to convey an impression that we had got up the
performance with the intention of obtaining money under false pretences. Our committee was called
together, and, after mature deliberation, resolved to issue a poster in
answer to it. It was to the effect that notwithstanding the ungenerous
opposition of the Hospital officials,
our committee were determined to carry out their original intentions. Our
only object being to do good, we did not think it necessary to consult the
Hospital officials; and in
the event of the proceeds of the day being refused, they would be given to
some other charitable institution. Well, sir, the performance took place,
and we found, after
deducting the printing and other necessary expenses, that we had a balance
of eight guineas. Our secretary was directed to communicate with the
Hospital to know whether
they would accept it. After waiting a week, we got the following reply:—

City of London Hospital for Diseases of the Chest.
Office, 6, Liverpool Street, Finsbury, London, 28th of Sep., 1857.

Sir,— I am directed by the committee of this Institution to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 21st inst., and to inform you that
while they appreciate the desire
expressed to aid the funds of the charity, they cannot accept the proceeds
arising from the performance of the Sunday Band.—I am, sir, your obedient
servant,

Mr. James Gilding. W. R. P.
SLATER, Secretary.

Our committee, on receipt of this reply, resolved to offer it to the
Adelaide Dispensary, in the Bethnal Green Road. The following reply has
been received:—

Sir,—In reply to your communication of Oct. 3, I am instructed by the
committee of Queen Adelaide Dispensary for the sick poor of Bethnal Green,
to inform you that they,
disapproving the principle of such Sunday recreation as the Sunday Band,
feel themselves compelled to decline the
offer of pecuniary assistance made to this Charity, through you as
secretary of the Victoria Park Sunday Band.—I am sir, yours faithfully in Christ Jesus,

THOS. PECKSTAN.

To Mr. J. Gilding, 32, Green Street, Bethnal Green.

We resolved to try for the third time. The following resolution was
carried at our last committee meeting:—'Resolved—That the balance in hand
arising from the sales of programmes and subscription cards at the
performance of the Sunday Band in the Victoria Park on Sunday, Sep. 13th,
be given to the poor-boxes of the Thames and Worship Street Police Courts,
and that Wm. Palmer, chairman, J. Gilding, secretary, and Wm. Cox,
band-master, form a deputation to the above courts.'

The deputation accordingly waited upon the magistrates at the courts
mentioned, who willingly accepted the proffered donations. Mr. Hammill, of
Worship Street, said that so
far from entertaining any scrupulous feelings upon the subject, he was
much gratified at receiving such a charitable offering, derived as it was
from what he believed to be an
innocent and healthful recreation, which was materially conducive to the
moral improvement of the humbler classes, and it happened at the present
moment to be peculiarly
acceptable, as the poor box of the court was literally in a state of
bankruptcy.

WE shall have ere long to insert a correspondence we
have had occasion to hold with the Board of Inland Revenue. The Morning Star
reports that 'the Lords of the Treasury have, at the instance of Mr. Scott, an envelope maker in Charlotte Street,
Blackfriars Road, directed the Board of Inland Revenue to grant a
drawback, under careful
regulations, to the waste cut from envelopes not made at a paper mill. This act of justice puts an end to the unfair advantage now possessed by
paper makers who
manufacture envelopes in their mills, and of course use their waste to
make fresh paper, paying duty only on the envelopes themselves, The effect
was a differential duty of
about four or five pounds per ton to the detriment of the domestic
envelope maker. The correspondence, on the part of Mr. Scott, was carried
on under the advice of the Association for Promoting the Repeal of the
Taxes on Knowledge.'

'We are concerned (says the Westminster Review) to find that a new
method of getting up Prayer-books and Bibles for church use enables the
ladies to find their own
amusement. It seems to be really the fact that the ladies' Prayer-books
have a small mirror bound up with the covers, probably of about the same
size as that in the
hat-crowns of dandies, which they consult while very devoutly covering
their faces on entering the pews.' Why not? Told that they are 'miserable
sinners,' ladies naturally look
to see whether they answer the description.

Lord Ellenborough, in an address to the Winchomb Agricultural Association,
puts the Indian difficulty and British duty in a European light, which we
think a true one:—'Do you
suppose that, if we could submit to this in India we should not be
threatened with it in England? Do you imagine that the great military
powers of Europe, always prepared for
war, offended by our pride, resentful of our former victories, and
coveting our present wealth, would long permit us to enjoy in peace the
luxuries we cling to, and the dreams
of irresistible strength in which we fatuously indulge? Be assured that
if, under the strongest necessity ever imposed upon a people, we do not
rise as one man to vindicate
our national honour and to re-establish our Indian empire, the horrors we
read of with shuddering as perpetrated at Meerut and at Delhi, will not
for ever be averted from our island home.'

The return of Mr. Fox for Oldham without opposition,
says the Daily
News, 'is highly creditable to a constituency which, six months ago, was
inadvertently betrayed into
apparent forgetfulness of the services and claims of that distinguished
man. Mr. Fox is one of those single-minded and gifted men who, having won
his own way—the way of
frugal toil and unavaricious merit—to political and literary eminence,
refuse to accept honours or rewards, even from the people, on any other
plea than that of having fairly
earned them. Far from suing for restitution of what he deemed his
equitable right to the representation of a town he had served so long and
so well, Mr. Fox, we believe, has abstained altogether front solicitation
or canvass of the electors since the death of Mr. Platt. Ample time was thus afforded for either millocrats
or ministerialists to fly what
they could do to secure his permanent exclusion from the legislature, and
the return of some dumb or docile jobber in his stead. With unpretentious
dignity he seems to have
resolved to take no part in an unworthy competition for the seat he felt
he had not forfeited, and the position he had legitimately made his own. The people of Oldham have the
character of being plain blunt men but they are , happily for themselves,
too numerous to be bullied, and too intelligent to be duped. They
appreciated as it deserved the
honest pride of their old member, and he said they would have him for
their member again.

Unlike other places, says the Spectator, Belfast
issued no newspapers on the Fast Day: 'but,' explains the Northern Whig,
'we are so virtuous and religious.'
BULLOCK, RAPSON,
AND GLOVERv. BRINDLEY.—If
Dr. Brindley confined himself
to legitimate criticism of Secular principles, the law courts report which
we propose to
quote next week from a Birmingham paper would not appear in our columns. Since, however, he directs his attack upon personal character, we think it
right to insert a
sample of objections which lie at his own door. His Liverpool proceedings
would also very much interest his opponents.

The Editor of the Reasoner would be happy to convey any aid to the
tradesman in question,

and will receive subscriptions ,for tickets:—To be raffled for, at the
house of Mr. Chadwick, 11, Cases Street, Liverpool, a full set of the London Journal
(being vols. 1 to 25, in numbers, in good condition), on Wednesday,
October 28, 18.57, at eight
o'clock, for the benefit of a small tradesman, and to prevent a distraint
from being levied on his goods.—Tickets, 1s. each.

R. HOLYOAKE'S LECTURES.—At
the John Street Institution, London, on Sunday, November 1, 1857, Mr. G. J. HOLYOAKE will lecture on the
'Mischiefs of Missionaryism
in India: incapacity of a Sectarian People to Govern great
Nations—Christianity at home, as respects toleration, is but modified Sepoyism.' Commence at seven o'clock.

At the Cabinet Theatre, Liverpool Street, King's Cross,
on Sunday, November 8th, the lecture announced to be delivered by Mr. A.
Holyoake is deferred, that Mr. G. J. Holyoake, whose engagements in the North preclude his speaking on any
other night, may lecture on 'New Forms of Freethought represented by
Secularism,' with a view to
indicate to a new audience the principles and policy which should
characterise the proceedings of a Freethought Society. The attendance of
strangers is requested on this
night. Commence at seven o'clock.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, November 10th and 11th, Mr. Holyoake will
lecture in the Public Hall, Rochdale, on 'New Forms of Freethought,' and
the 'Principles of
Secularism distinguished from Atheism and Orthodoxy.' Commence at eight
o'clock.

Mr. Holyoake has been requested to discuss with Mr. Lomax, in Blackburn,
on November 17th and 18th.

ETROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.—A public meeting will be held in the
Coffee Room of the Literary Institution, John Street, Fitzroy Square, on
Thursday evening,
October 29th inst., at eight o'clock, to explain the objects and
principles of the above Society, to enrol members, and elect officers.

LONDON SECULAR SOCIETY.—On Wednesday, November 4th, at eight o'clock, at
the Class Rooms, 101, High Street, Hoxton, the adjourned half-yearly
meeting of the
members will be held, when business of importance will he brought before
them.—At the Cabinet Theatre, Liverpool Street, King's Cross, on Sunday,
October 25th, Mr, J. B. Bebbington lectured on 'God in History not recognised by Science.' The
lecturer quoted from 'The Hand of God in History,' a work written by an
American clergyman, and
reproduced in England, to show what the doctrines really held by
Christians were on the subject of Providence and special interpositions of
Deity. He described the theory, in
the words of the Leader, as a ransacking of history to discover teeth
opposite each other, after the example of the old woman who had but two
teeth in her head, and who
said that it was by the mercy of Providence they were opposite each
other, not being able to credit nature with power to perform such a
miracle. The recent humiliation and
fast was referred to, and the whimsical and amusing variety of causes for
the Indian revolt, suggested by the preachers on that day, was commented
on, The lecturer said,
that the theology of the fast day would be repudiated on the meeting of
Parliament, and none would cry out louder than those who applauded that
theology, if a Parliamentary
committee were to report that the mutinies were to be attributed to the
hand of God. It was further urged that science broadly discountenanced the
theological theory—as,
indeed, an admission of it would render science impossible. The
lecture was characterised by that solidity and carefulness which have
distinguished Mr. Bebbington's papers
in the Reasoner.—Mr. G. J. Holyoake, who was in the chair, took the
opportunity, after the lecture, to give an interesting report of Secular
proceedings in Scotland and the
North of England. Mr. Binyon, Mr. Ford, Mr. Savage, and others, spoke
after the lecture. A very respectable audience attended this pretty and
convenient place of
meeting.—F. FARRAH, Sec.

SOUTH LONDON SECULAR HALL, Blackfriars Road.—The discussion on the
'Resurrection of Christ' was resumed last Sunday afternoon, when upwards
of 200 persons
were present, as on former occasions. After an interesting discussion, the
subject was again adjourned till nest Sunday afternoon.—In the evening Mr. John Watts gave a
highly satisfactory lecture on 'The Theories of Jesus Christ,' noticing
Strauss's and Dupuis' arguments, and examined the texts of Scripture where
Christ speaks, and is
spoken of, as divine; and showed how incompatible his sayings and deeds
were with 'divinity.' The lecturer then examined the arguments of those
who believe Christ to have
been a mere man, but one of the greatest men of ancient and modern times,
showing how fallacious such arguments were, since Christ must either be
supposed divine, or
considered as an enthusiast who put forth claims to which he was not
entitled. After the lecture, Mr. Noah Green combatted, in a vigorous
speech, the arguments of the lecturer, who replied to Mr. Green's objections in detail.—The lecturer
made a further appeal for subscriptions to obtain a new Hall in that
district, and stated that about £23
had been subscribed. A gentleman present, who gave £5, promised to lend
£20, payable out of future profits. The committee earnestly solicit
subscriptions or donations for
the above object. All amounts will be acknowledged in the Reasoner,
and placed in the bank by Mr. G. J. Holyoake, who has been requested to act as
treasurer. The
committee intend holding a tea meeting early in next month, when they hope
to have a large number of persons present. Due notice of particulars will
be given. J. BABBS,
Sec.

EAST LONDON SECULAR SOCIETY,
Philpot Street, Commercial Road East. -On October 25th, 'Iconoclast'
lectured on 'New Testament Christianity,' urging that Jesus was incoherent
and contradictory in His teachings; and that the whole of the system of
Christianity was founded on a mistake—i.e., that men had
power to believe in alleged
existences, with which they have no possible connexion, and of which they
could not by any possibility obtain any knowledge.—On Thursday, 29th inst, at eight p.m.,
'Iconoclast' will deliver the first of a series of controversial lectures. Subject:—'The
Pentateuch.'

LITERARY INSTITUTION, John Street, Fitzroy Square.—On Monday evening,
November 23, 1857, a Musical and Dramatic Entertainment will be given. The
proceeds will be
devoted to the liquidation of the liabilities of the Institution. Friends
in all parts of London are solicited to assist in making it a success,
that the committee at the termination
of their present office may be free to devote themselves to the new
Institution to be erected in Howland Street, Fitzroy Square. Admission,
Hall 4d., Gallery 6d. Full details
will be given.

ROCHDALE SECULAR SOCIETY.—A member will read an Essay to the above
Society on Sunday, November 1st, at six o'clock in the evening, in the
Public Hall, Baillie
Street.—A. G.

SHEFFIELD.—On Sunday, October 18th, Councillor Beal lectured on the '
Antagonism of Science and Revelation.' The lecture was introduced by a
view of the various
religions, and lengthened references as to the facts established in
geology, botany, astronomy, etc., were given. Comparisons were also made
to show the want of
dependence to be placed on the Bible account. Mr. Blake and a
stranger offered observations, to which Mr. Beal made a most happy reply.
Mr. Adcroft was chairman, and at
the commencement recited one of Critchley Prince's poems. There was a
numerous and respectable audience. Messrs. Priest, Nelson, Sayles, and
Jackson also stated
their views.—The municipal elections being at hand, friends were
counselled to send men favourable to opening libraries and museums on
Sundays. The opening of the North
Church Street School-room appears to be approved of by an intelligent
body of inquiring young men.—At Scotland Street Chapel, a Sunday or two
ago, a Revivalist was
preaching what he calls a 'Death Sermon.' At the conclusion he declared
that he never preached that sermon, but the week after two of the
congregation died, and one went
to hell the other to heaven. You will not be surprised when I tell you
that young people, who never before were subject to fits, have, after
hearing sermons from this prophet,
been subject to them.—H. T.

BOLTON SECULAR SOCIETY.—On
Sunday, October 25th, Mr. H. Turner, of
Sheffield, delivered two lectures to very attentive audiences; in the
afternoon, on 'Friendly
Societies and their Improvement,' and in the evening, on the 'Nature and
Influence of Poetry.' On the first subject the lecturer spoke on the evils
of such societies being held
at public-houses, and the useless expenditure of money by a great majority
of such clubs in feasts and paraphernalia. Mr. T. had well studied his
subject, and was
thoroughly prepared to defend the ground he took. Some discussion ensued,
after which about two dozen of our friends took tea together.—The
evening's subject was made
very interesting indeed. It might be called a 'History of Poetry and the
Poets,' and was well illustrated with recitations and readings. Many of
our friends expressed themselves
well pleased with the instructive and entertaining discourse, and at its
close passed a vote of thanks to the lecturer. Mr. Turner, in
acknowledging the same, briefly introduced
the Sunday question, suggesting the importance of getting up a requisition
to the Town Council on the propriety of opening the Free Library on
Sunday, Sheffield and other
towns are moving in the matter, and it is expected Manchester will shortly
do the same.—Wm. HILTON.

NORTHAMPTON SECULAR SOCIETY.—On Sunday, October 25th, the Northampton
Secularists held the first meeting of the Society for the present season;
but owing to the
fact that no public announcement had been made, there was not a largo
attendance. Those present consisted principally of the Secularists and
friends, except a few who had
come by mistake. During the summer the room in which we meet had been lot
to the Reform Ranters (who still meet there in the morning and afternoon),
and as no public
notice had been made of the change, they had come, expecting to find the
usual occupants. Great was their surprise to find the meeting opened
without singing and prayer; but greater still it became when they heard
Mr. Bryan commence his lecture
on 'Paine and his Detractor's. 'They, however, waited and listened; and as
the first part consisted
of extracts from Christian writers against Paine, in which he was pictured
as a base, unprincipled, wretched drunkard, they did not seem to feel much
troubled; but when the
lecturer got as far as the quotations from friendly biographers, one, more
bold than the rest, started away hurriedly, as if he had heard a secret
voice saving, 'Come out from
among them;' and he was instantly followed by all the others, who rushed
down the long flight of stairs with the greatest precipitation; no doubt
in a similar state of feeling to
that of the apostles, when they shook the dust off their feet upon the
city which would not willingly receive them. The incident caused a smile;
but the lecturer proceeded to
the end without further interruption. It was an interesting lecture,
and the extracts from different writers were well selected. —At the close some
remarks were made by
Messrs. Gurney and Jackson, to which the lecturer replied, and the meeting
separated.—Next Sunday Mr. Jackson will lecture on 'Human Egotism,'
commencing at half-past
six o'clock.—It is intended to hold our monthly Sunday tea-meeting on the
first Sunday in the month, as usual, at half-past four o'clock. It is open
to all Secularists and their
friends, and we shall be glad to sec as many of them as can make it
convenient to attend. The place of meeting is the same as last
season—No. 6, front room, Corn
Exchange.—G. C., pro J. BATES.

SCOTLAND.—Recent lectures delivered by Mr. Holyoake in Scotland, will be
the subject of future reports.

PRESTON.—We have seventeen members, who attend very regularly, We have
had offers of support from many quarters in the town, so we have thought
it advisable to print
the following circular, and leave it at the residences of Freethinkers,
and then call again in a week's time. One gentleman made us a present of
8s. worth of books, and a
subscription for Pooley. It any of our members fall sick, or are in any
way disabled from their work, if their circumstances are such as to
require it, we contribute towards their
support. We meet every Sunday night at seven o'clock, when we listen to a
lecture, generally delivered by one of the members. We had Anthony Collins
in our room a few
weeks since. He promised to lecture for us gratuitously. We meet also on
Monday nights, when we have a debate, generally opened by one of the
members. The following is
the circular we issued:—'An Appeal to the Friends of Freethought and Free
Discussion in Preston.' It has been thought desirable by the committee and
members of the
Preston Free Debating Society, to make an appeal to the lovers of Freethought and Free Discussion residing in and around Preston. The
Society's present place of meeting
is one ill adapted for the purposes which the society has in view. We are
about to take a larger room, and we hope to be able to have it well
furnished. We have a hope too
that we shall be able to take in journals of the highest character, both
in politics, literature, art, and religion. We have also in prospect the
establishment of a library in
connection with the society, to consist of the most approved books on
history, poetry, politics, religion, etc. We trust to be able to take a
room that shall be large enough for public lectures. We hope also to be
able to establish a fund for the relief of the deserving poor and sick amongst us, so that they may not
need to depend on the conditional charity of religious bodies. We
may add that we have in view the building of a Hall that shall be free in the widest meaning of that
word. All this will require
much time, much exertion, and much self-sacrifice on the part of some
individuals. Individuals have been found who are willing to devote that
time, to make that exertion, and to endure that sacrifice. We therefore
wish respectfully to say, that it remains for you who are outside the immediate working of the
organisation to subscribe, that we may
have the means to work out our objects. Besides your subscriptions, we
shall always be most willing to receive and apply any advice which those
amongst you who have had
more experience may give us.—W. SINGLETON,
Sec.; R. BAXENDALE, President; T. HOSKINSON,
Treasurer.'

SOCIETY OF MATERLIALISTS.—At the weekly meeting of Wednesday, the 21st
inst.—Mr. O'Neill (V. P.) in the chair—Mr. Adams tendered his
resignation as hon. sec. Various measures were proposed and accepted to extend the operations of
the society. The question, 'Is Mind a Material Function?' was then
discussed by the Mutual
Instruction Class, and unanimously adjourned.—W. H. H., Hon, Sec.

THE AMERICAN PULPIT HABIT.—A correspondent of the American Christian
Reflector says.—'I notice in some cases a handkerchief habit in the
pulpit which has led me to
inquire if the use of that very necessary article is a part of theological
training, I notice some ministers take it out of their pockets as they do
their sermon, and lay it on the
pulpit. Some spread it out lengthwise through the middle of the Bible;
some roll it up and tuck it under the Bible; some shake it every few
moments over their heads; some
clench it in their hand, as if they were going to throw it at the
audience; and some keep crowding it into their pockets and pulling it out
again with a nervous movement, as if
they did not know what other use to make of their hands. I went once to
hear a popular young preacher, and as much as half his sermon was made up
of pocket handkerchief; and the most of the other half was gold watch and
scraps of poetry.'
_________________________________________________________________________

REPORT OF THE CASE OF THOMAS POOLEY.—We have published the entire Report,
thirty-two pages, price 3d., with an engraving of the 'wretched' Gate of
the Rev. Paul
Bush. We ask our friends everywhere, and especially in Cornwall, to
promote its circulation. They can be had at 2s. 6d, per dozen, post free.

LECTURES, DISCUSSIONS, CLASSES, ETC.
[NOTICES for this Department
must reach us not later than the first post, on Monday morning.]

_____________________________Advertisements.
________
No more than in the case of other Journals can the REASONER
be held responsible for Advertisements.

THE TRIAL OF THEISM.—By G. J. Holyoake. Published in
Penny Numbers on the 1st and 15th of each month. Contents of No.
9:—
Mr. Newman's axiom of human thought. His answer to
Byron's question.
The transmutation of attributes into entities one of
the habits of Theists.
New statement of the argument of Design.
A God uncaused to explanation of a world uncaused.
Francis Place's definition of Faith.
Naturalism not without morals.
'We must not buy the patience of the poor by
propagating delusion.'
The duty of approval as well as censure.

London: Holyoake and Co., 147, Fleet Street.

_____________________________

THE WAVERLEY. A Working-Woman's Journal; devoted to the legal and industrial interests
of women. Edited by Bessie Rayner Parkes. Published fortnightly. Price 4d. To be had from the office, 14A, Princes Street, Cavendish Square; and from Tweedie, 337, Strand. Also at 147, Fleet Street.

_____________________________

FURNISHED APARTMENTS,
for a single gentleman, in a Secular Family, in the Queen's-road, Dalston.—Apply
147, Fleet-street.

LIST OF RARE AND OTHER BOOKS TO
be disposed of by Holyoake and Co., 147, Fleet Street. If sent by post 2d. extra for every shilling.
Sermons, by the Rev. Thomas Gisborne, M.A. 3s.
Essays on the Spirit of Legislation in the
Encouragement of Agriculture, Population, Manufactures, and Commerce;
containing observations on the Political Systems at present pursued in
various countries of Europe for the advancement of those essential
interests. Translated from the original French. (A book of interest to the
political student.) 3s.
Observations on the Writings of the Craftsman. 2s. 6d.
History of the Westminster and Middlesex Elections, in the
month of November, 1800. 1 vol. bound in calf, with a large coloured
print. With speeches of Burdett, Hume, etc. 3s.
The Grave of Human Philosophies, Ancient and Modern;
or, the Universal System of the Brahmins Unveiled. By R. de Bécourt.
Translated from the French, with additional notes, by A. Dalmas. With
large engraved view of the universe divided in two hemispheres. 2s. 6d.

Published and sold for J. Watson, by Holyoake and Co., 147,
Fleet Street.
_____________________________

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. Being No. l, price 2d., of a new
edition of the Rev. Robert Taylor's 'Devil's Pulpit' (to be published
fortnightly), is now ready. No. 2 'Belief not the Safe Side' was published
on the 15th. 'Ahab; or, the Lying Spirit,' will be ready on the 29th.
'The curious scholar, the relisher of sharp wit, the logician, the
antiquary, though indifferent to all but his own speciality, will find
ample satisfaction in Taylor's
Astronomico-Theological Lectures; and free and independent thinkers will
find it difficult to treat themselves to such another "feast" of reason.'
—Boston Investigator.

THE BIBLE:
What it Is!—A Freethinking Commentary on the Bible. Fortnightly, price
One Penny. Parts I. and Il. carry the commentary to the end of the
Pentateuch. Each Part complete in itself, containing six numbers, bound in
neat wrapper, price 6½ Nos. 13, 14, and 15 treat of the Books of Joshua,
Judges, and Ruth.—No 16 contains carefully selected quotations from Volney's
'Life of Samuel.'
Communications from those who approve and wish to
assist the compiler of this work, to be addressed to 'Iconoclast,' 147,
Fleet Street, London, E. C.

_____________________________

THE SPY. Mr. D. URQUHART EXPOSED; being a Discussion between Major S. E.
Rolland, of Worthing, and Mr. A. F. Bain of Newcastle, on 'Palmerston and the People.'
Reprinted from the 'North of England Advertiser,' with some wholesome
advice to Mr. Urquhart and his followers. Just published, price 6d.—The
usual allowance to the trade. Orders to be sent to Mr. Ward,
printer, Dean Street, Newcastle, or Mr. Bain, Spring Garden Lane, Newcastle.

METROPOLITAN INSTITUTION
COMPANY (Limited), Office, 30,
Howland Street, Fitzroy Sq. Attendance from Ten to Twelve a.m. daily, and
at Eight p.m. on Thursday evenings. Capital, £5,000. Shares, £1 each. Deposit, 6d. per share. Calls not to exceed 1s. per share per month.' The
object of the Company is, by means of donations and shares, to raise a
fund for erecting a commodious Institution, wherein the industrious
classes may assemble to acquire and communicate useful knowledge, and
where they may have innocent recreation and amusement at a trifling
expense—such Institution to contain a large Lecture Hall, with
appropriate Committee Rooms, Museum, Library, Reading Rooms, Class Rooms
for the tuition of adults, and School Rooms for the education of children
of both sexes. Donations of Money, Books, and Models, and of any materials
applicable to scholastic purposes, will be highly acceptable. In case the
gifts are objects of Natural History, Geological Specimens, etc., the
donors will oblige by affixing the description to each. Applications
for shares, etc., to be made to Mr. Thomas Whitaker, Secretary, at the Office,
30, Howland Sheet, Fitzroy Square, between the hours of Eight and Ten on
Thursday evenings; or to Mr. Frederick Farrah, 147, Fleet Street, City,
any day from Nine a.m. till Eight p.m.
NOTICE.—The Directors have made the twelfth call on
the shares payable on November 9th, 1857.—N.B. It is particularly
requested that the calls be paid immediately, as the Directors are making
arrangements to commence the new Institution.
Oct. 10th, 1857. THOS. Whittaker, Sec.

_____________________________

HALL of SCIENCE, near Finsbury Square, City Road.—Sunday
Evening Discourses in defence of Christianity, including an examination of
Paine's 'Age of Reason,' to be delivered in the month of November, 1857,
by THOMAS COOPER,
author of the 'Purgatory of Suicides.'
November 1st.—Noble personal character of Thomas
Paine, and the high value of his services to Freedom: causes of his
errors on religion: his misconceptions and mis-statement of the facts of
Gospel History, arising from hasty and imperfect inquiry: his testimony
to the moral excellence of the character of Christ: his utter want of
critical information respecting the text of the Old Testament, and the
errors into which his want of correct knowledge led him.
November 8th.—Proof from Thomas Paine's mode of
treating the New Testament that he never understood Christianity:
theologians and their mis-teachings partly to be blamed for this: Paine's
own confession of his want of patient examination of the system of
Christianity, and his confession—'I keep no Bible:' his testimony against
Atheism, and his ideas of Natural Religion: his very curious and
contradictory observations on 'Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy.'
November 15th.—Second part of the 'Age of Reason:'
Thomas Paine says, 'I have furnished myself with a Bible and Testament:'
the correctness of some of his criticisms on the Pentateuch: question
whether Paine, as a Deist, was consistent in his condemnation of other
parts of the Pentateuch: the errors contained in his remarks on other
parts of the Old Testament.
November 22nd.—Inconsideration and rashness with which
Thomas Paine opened the New Testament: his criticisms upon it most
unworthy of himself: their gross coarseness the cause why cultivated men
lay aside the 'Age of Reason' when they open on these pages: proofs that,
although Paine had now 'furnished himself with a Testament,' he had not
the patience to read it carefully; and so, yielding to prejudice, he fell
to reviling it.
November 29th.—Third part of 'The Age of Reason:
Paine's Examination of the passages in the New Testament quoted from the
Old, and called Prophecies:' the random and indifferent mode in which his
'examination' is performed, a proof that Paine's mind was not in a fit
state to undertake it: whimsicality of his 'Private Thoughts on a Future
State,' appended to the 'Age of Reason.'
Conversations with objectors to be held at the end of
each Discourse. To commence at Seven. Admission: Gallery, or Platform,
3d.; Hall, 2d.

_____________________________

AMERICAN AUSTRALIAN
and Inland Forwarding Office. —GEORGE RAMSDEN, 25
Hunter Street, Liverpool. All letters prepaid will receive immediate
attention, and a circular
of useful information forwarded by return of post. Good beds and free
storage for luggage.
G. R.'s arrangements are complete to forward passengers by railway to any
part of the United States and td Canada. Passengers can know the actual
cost to their destination
before leaving home which will save them considerable expense and trouble
by writing to this establishment.

Printed and Published for the 'Promoters of Freethought,' by Holyoake and
Co., at the REASONER Office 147, Fleet Street, in the City of London.
(E.C.)